The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line for courts and tribunals, declaring that any request made by the country’s highest court must be treated as a binding direction. Failure to comply, it warned, will invite serious scrutiny.
The observation came while a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran examined the conduct of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had failed to hear an appeal despite a specific request from the Supreme Court.
The matter arose in Sona Bansal v. Vashisht Kumar Goyal & Ors., a dispute linked to insolvency proceedings.
Supreme Court questions NCLAT’s delay
On July 15, the Supreme Court had made an earnest request to the NCLAT to hear the appeal on July 23. The request followed submissions that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had already reserved its order on an insolvency petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Despite that intervention, the appeal remained unheard.
When the matter returned to the Supreme Court on October 27, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the applicant, informed the bench that the NCLAT had still not taken up the appeal.
In the meantime, the NCLT had delivered its reserved order and admitted the company into insolvency, adding urgency to the dispute.
The bench expressed its displeasure over the appellate tribunal’s handling of the matter, questioning why the Supreme Court’s earlier request had not been acted upon.
‘A request must be construed as a direction’
The Court used the occasion to clarify how its communications to other judicial forums should be understood.
It said that when the Supreme Court requests a court or tribunal to take a particular step, the communication cannot be dismissed as a mere appeal for cooperation. It must be understood as a direction, and any failure to comply will be examined seriously.
The bench also explained that such requests are made out of institutional respect and deference to the judicial office concerned, not because the Supreme Court lacks the authority to issue directions.
The remarks carry a broader message for judicial bodies: the language of a request should not obscure the obligation to act when the Supreme Court has specifically called for a matter to be addressed.
NCLAT asked to explain the delay
Taking the matter forward, the Supreme Court issued notice returnable on November 19 and directed the NCLAT to submit an explanation for its failure to hear the appeal despite the earlier intervention.
The tribunal has been asked to account for why the matter remained pending after the Supreme Court had specifically called for it to be heard.
Meanwhile, the bench ordered that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) must not be constituted under the ongoing insolvency proceedings until further orders.
The interim protection is significant because the NCLT’s admission of the company into insolvency had already moved the dispute into a consequential stage.
The proceedings will now return to the Supreme Court for further consideration, with the NCLAT’s explanation expected to address the delay and its failure to act on the earlier request.